User talk:Krystalelliott

Welcome!

Hello, Krystalelliott, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Michael Barera (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: SkySync (December 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:SkySync and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: SkySync (December 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kikichugirl was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:SkySync and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— kikichugirl ^oh hello! 17:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Krystalelliott, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 17:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:SkySync

Krystalelliott,

I'm admittedly not an expert when it comes to writing about software on Wikipedia, but I do have some experience. The first place I'd recommend you look at is the article Wisely (mobile application), which I created almost two years ago. As you can see, it is very short, consisting of only a lead section along with "Development" and "Features". Aside from a few well placed direct quotes from the co-founder of the company, which are well set-off by their quotation marks from the rest of the material, the rest of the article is very direct and descriptive and (thanks to work done by Arbitrarily0) is largely devoid of "fluffy" promotional content. As you can see, he improved the article by toning down passages that I wrote that he deemed to be too promotional. It is always hard to be objective and stay away from promoting material that one knows well, as was the case for me with the Wisely article.

That said, I'd like to observe that some phrases ("downloadable software solution", "broad ecosystem of partners") and even whole sections ("Awards", "Customers", "Partners") give the article an advertisment-like promotional tone, which is what I think Kikichugirl is addressing in her review. What I would try to do would be to focus more on the product itself in a technical way (with "History"/"Development" and "Features" sections) and then, especially, integrate more third-party sources that don't have any relationship to SkySync (ie, national, regional/local, and specialist media coverage of the product); take a look at the references for the Wisely (mobile application) article, which is a pretty good example. Or better yet, model your work on the articles Microsoft Security Essentials and Macintosh Classic, both of which are featured articles, meaning they are among the highest quality articles on all of Wikipedia. My personal rule of thumb is to try to find news sources and reviews from media sources that are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles themselves (ie, Detroit Free Press, MLive, PC World, etc.).

Long story short, I'd focus more on the specifics of the software's development and features, less on its "broad ecosystem of partners" and customers, and (most importantly) add a healthy amount of materials by third-party reviews. This could be a challenge, however, as a quick Google News search revealed mostly press releases, which are much less helpful than third-party coverage. There appeared to be a couple of potential third-party sources in their, though, such as ZDNet. Perhaps there simply aren't enough of these sources to write an article on SkySync just yet; I know this isn't what you want to hear, but perhaps you may need to wait for the product to become more widely reviewed, and then you can create a strong neutral-point-of-view article at that point.

Another alternative at this point is connecting with WikiProject Software; they'll be much more knowledgeable about this subject matter than I am, and you can contact them here. Also, WikiProject Computer science's manual of style may be useful to you as you work on revising your SkySync draft.

Please don't hesitate to ask me any questions you may have, or enlist my help if you need it. I know Wikipedia editing can be challenging for newcomers, so please don't feel discouraged. I'm here for you, as are many other people; the aforementioned Teahouse is a great resource for new editors. Above all, happy editing!

Michael Barera (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: SkySync (January 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:SkySync and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great advice from Onel5969

Good news! I asked for perspective about developing Draft:SkySync into an appropriate encyclopedia article, and I have been given great advice by Onel5969, the last reviewer to review your AfC submission. I'd highly recommend that you check it out and try to apply it to your SkySync draft. ~~Note that Onel5969's talk page is very active, so if you wait more than a couple of days this thread will probably be archived to here or maybe here.~~ Hope this helps and again, happy editing! Michael Barera (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Michael Barera - No need to worry, though, I only archive once a month, so the next time won't be until early February. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! I will be taking the time to gather more references and adding more factual information to the post before I submit again. The change of wording/positioning of the partners was particularly helpful, Onel5969. And thanks Michael Barera for following up and getting more information for me. This is a serious learning experience! Krystalelliott (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: SkySync (January 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:SkySync and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: SkySync (March 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment they left was:

Most of the sources here do not meet wp:rs - Concentrate Ann Arbor is supported by local businesses, thus not independent; Baseline is minimal at best; VR Review does not give any editorial information, appears to be a blog; InfoWeek article is just a name-check; TechCrunch article doesn't say much about it; Google site is a single sentence in a list with other products.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:SkySync and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:SkySync

Hello, Krystalelliott. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "SkySync".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]